Discriminating Against Christians Yet Again

Here we go again.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull are Christians. They own Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion, Cornwall. They aren’t liberal, Christianity-is-whatever-I-decide-it-is Christians. As a result, on the booking form page of their website they state:

Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).

Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples – Thank you.

If you have been paying attention to UK equality legislation, you know what happened next. Someone in a same-sex relationship was looking for a hotel, came across the site and notified Stonewall, the anti-heterosexual rights organisation, who then took it upon themselves to warn the Bulls they were breaking the law by not positively facilitating fornication irrespective of gender coupling or bodily oriface.

After all, the hotel has refused double beds to plenty of unmarried heterosexual couples, including Mrs Bull’s own brother and his girlfriend.

Now I just don’t believe that Steven Preddy then happened to ring to book a room without having seen the website, or the complaint from Stonewall, for that matter. He and his partner Martyn Hall were not surprised when the hotel refused to honour their booking when they showed up. It was a set up to try to stick it to the Christians. They were only there to set up a case of “discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation”.

Mr Preddy and Mr Hall reported the incident to the police and have filed a civil case claiming £5,000 in damages for the alleged discrimination.

Preddy and Hall are right about one thing. This is a case involving discrimination. There is discrimination against those who have beliefs that particularly kinds of behaviour are wrong. These are not beliefs unique to the Bulls. This is the universal witness of Christianity, with the exception of a few people in the last few years who decided that they could find sexual immorality and Christianity compatible by simply calling evil “good” and good “evil”. For that matter, it is the universal witness of of Islam and Judaism and most of the world’s other religions.

It’s not like there are aren’t lots of other hotels of an equal or superior quality or price that could have accommodated Preddy and Hall or anyone else Stonewall wants to send around. So in fact Preddy and Hall weren’t been denied the chance to stay in a hotel. It is about an agenda to force everyone to accept a particular behaviour as equal and normative. The gay rights lobby have the Government on their side. The Bulls’ hope the European Convention on Human Rights will be interpreted to supercede this as it says that people are able to hold a religious belief and manifest it in the way they act. But will plain language prevail against the unholy spirit of the age?

Advertisements

28 Responses to “Discriminating Against Christians Yet Again”

  1. Athanasia Says:

    “Preddy and Hall are right about one thing. This is a case involving discrimination. There is discrimination against those who have beliefs that particularly kinds of behaviour are wrong.”

    AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

    • Pete and Hazelmary Bull` Says:

      Thank you for taking the trouble to respond – we would pile on the `Amens’ to yours. We await a date for the hearing, but provisionally anticipate spring, 2010. God bless you.

    • carol Says:

      Hi,

      i am with you both 100% on this matter,
      its about time more hotels and b7b,s took a genuine interest in doing the same and only having married man and woman stay there,
      i think what these two men are trying to do is to cause so much havoc, and to get what they can from you both,
      God willing i hope that your courtcase goes in our favour,

      i am an ex neighbour of your,s when you had the place at agar road, illogan highway.

      all the best and here is wishing you a very good Christmas,

      carol xxx

  2. Thomas Rowley Says:

    Flogging yet again the current christian meme isn’t going to be a very effective defense against a challenge to clear discrimination in public accommodation. You can have all the christians you want in your place. You just can’t deny publicly licensed accommodations based on your various prejudices. Tough!

  3. Emily Goodhand Says:

    Just read that the gay couple won the court case…

    You weren’t discriminating, you stated clearly that the B&B did not cater for unmarried couples in one room because you respect the sanctity of marriage. It wasn’t like you had a big sign outside saying ‘NO GAYS’, akin to wartime Germany with the Jews.

    If this was a setup then I think it’s disgraceful – a cheap ploy to make money and get themselves noticed, possibly because of their own insecurities. I have issues with the gay community when they do things like this.

    The damages awarded to them were £1800 each, and I imagine there are legal fees on top of that. I for one would personally like to contribute towards getting you back on your feet, and I hope other Christians in the UK would as well. We will all support you morally and financially and hope to see your lovely B&B back up and running, because in this day and age depravity should not be allowed the victory – praise the Lord that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, and He will provide.

    God bless you xx

  4. livefreeordie1776 Says:

    “When fascism returns it will be carrying a pink swastika wrapped in a rainbow flag.” Larry Sinclaire Upton Lewis
    AND IT HAS RETURNED. This time the very same demons who established the “Brown Shirts” in 1930s Germany are back but this time wearing fuchsia boas. If we do not have freedom of conscience nor the freedom of dissent, nor the freedom of association WE HAVE NOT FREEDOM.
    When the state forbids and prohibits the freedom to exercise conscience and the right to privacy who will forbid the state from committing crimes against humanity?
    Historically it has been the voice of the Christian church and the voices of Christian individuals who stand against totalitarianism, fascism and tyranny. The ruling elite knows this historic fact and are systematically and deliberately targeting soft voices of conscience and publicizing their persecution to make public examples of what happens to conscientious objectors.
    Among Hitler’s first official acts as Chancellor was the deliberate targeting and murdering defenseless nuns and priests knowing that they would be his natural enemies and dissenters. He knew that the merciless elimination of pacifist challengers would instill terror into anyone who would object in the future. Make no mistake, the Bull family has been chosen for this very reason. Stripping the individual of their conscience is a bloodless rape and murder of the soul and essential human right to privacy and conscience.
    This travesty has NOTHING to do with homosexuality but everything to do with the state defining “official morality”. Viewpoint discrimination at its lowest ebb. Where the state defines and or legislates morality there will eventually be genocide and persecution.
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Attributed to Edmund Burke

  5. james Says:

    some of you’re comments sicken me. no wonder people are leaving the christian faith in droves. i dont know anyone in my age group (under 30) who goes follows christianity becasue it is so backwards and living 50 years in the past.

    Wake up and smell the coffee. this is 2011. gay people havent just increased in numbers. they have always been around, but had to live in the closest because of discrimination such as this. now 95% of the country believe it is actually ok to be gay, apart from you idiots.

    i am a gay male. but i dont choose to be gay. of course i’d rather have a wife and kids, but god made me this way…i didnt choose to be this way.

    so perhaps you should be asking questions of you’re ‘creator’ and just get on with life and enjoy it, without being such prudes and stop putting up barriers to the gay community. we will smash them down and win the battle.

    • sol Says:

      James, you do seem unaware of the demographics of Christianity. Christianity is a growing, not diminishing, religion. I think you probably don’t know anyone in your age group who follows Christianity because your circle of friends would primarily include those whose interests and beliefs are similar to you. The church I attend is bursting with under-30s and I know several other churches in the small city where I live that have lots of under-30s.

      Christianity isn’t living 50 years in the past. It is living 2000 years in the past, because that’s when Jesus died and was resurrected. It is also living 2000 years in the future, because as the writer of the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament reminds us, Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It is therefore irrelevant that it is the year 2011 or that there is coffee brewing.

      If homosexuality is something that is genetic, then it is mathematically impossible for gay people to increase in numbers. Homosexuality is by its nature non-reproductive. The militant homosexual community has increased in volume and strongly encouraged gay people to demand special treatment due to their sexual orientation.

      Nonetheless, marriage is an institution establish by God as between a man and a woman. That some people are not inclined (whether by nature or nurture) to participate in that institution is their choice. It is also the choice of most Christians to honour the institution that God created and the special rights and privileges that are dependent upon it.

      Honouring God and His institutions does not cause me to ask any questions of Him, nor does it keep me from getting on with my life and enjoying it. It is also the prudent thing to do. You may enjoy some success in encouraging those around you, even those in Government, to reject God and His institutions, glorifying sinful behaviour, but sadly those who rebel against God win a few little battles, but always lose the war in eternity.

  6. A married woman Says:

    The problem is that they were civil partners, and in the UK it is not acceptable to treat civil partnerships any different to marriages. This was not two men out for a weekend of fun, it was a stable couple as close to married as its possible to get as gay individuals in the UK.

    Can the Bulls really say that every straight couple who have stayed there were married? If I turned up with a man to whom I claimed to be married, I could continue an affair under their roof, but a couple who have vowed:

    “To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.”

    Can’t stay in this commercial hotel which was open to the public just because they are both men, then I remind you that Jesus told his followers not to judge others, and to let those without sin cast the first stone.

    • sol Says:

      The problem that they were civil partners is one that was created by Judge Rutherford. The legislative intent expressed by the Labour government was that civil partnerships would be contracts conferring rights and privileges as between the parties. You are right that this was not two men out for a weekend of fun, but rather it was a sting set up by Stonewall, which had already targeted the Bulls and sent them correspondence complaining about their policies.

      A civil partnership may be as close to married as it is possible to get as a practicing homosexual, but it is still not marriage. A nation either chooses to recognise the institutitons that God has created, or it chooses to whatever degree to rebel against Him.

      The Bulls have no burden to prove that every straight couple staying in a double-bedded room were married. They are entitled to make whatever enquiries they choose. If the Bulls ask a man and a woman about their marital status, or even look at their wedding rings or their same surname, and that satisfies their conscience, that’s all that matters. Their rules are, after all, a matter of their conscience. They have every right to assume that any man and woman staying together are married, though given the pervasiveness of fornication in this country, it is unlikely that they would do so. However, if two men show up, they know, ipso facto, the couple are not married, as marriage is, ab initio, a relationship between a man and a woman.

      The Bulls were perfectly happy for these two men to stay in their home, as long as they stayed in separate beds. They were not happy for these men to impose their behaviour on the sanctity of their home.

      They did not cast stones at anyone. They did not condemn they men for their sodomy. They only exerted their right not to have individuals carry out sinful behaviour choices in their home.

  7. Elizabeth @ The Garden Window Says:

    Sol,

    I was appalled – but not surprised – that the Bulls lost their case.
    Homosexuals are now entitled to much more “positive discrimination” than any other group of people in this country.

    The earlier quotation from livefreeordie1776 is so apt ! :

    “When fascism returns it will be carrying a pink swastika wrapped in a rainbow flag.” Larry Sinclaire Upton Lewis

  8. Tony Sidaway Says:

    The key here, I’m convinced, is that Mr Preddy and Mr Hall were in a civil partnership. This is legally identical to marriage, so the Bulls were actually admitting that they discriminated against the couple because they are homosexual.

    While the Bulls have been given leave to appeal, I’d actually be pretty surprised to see this verdict overturned. It’s pretty solid.

  9. sol Says:

    It was not the legislative intent that a civil partnership be legally identical to a marriage, but that is not the basis of the Bulls discrimination. A civil partnership is not morally identical to a marriage, because marriage was created by God and God defines what a marriage is. Sex between civil partners is still sex outside of marriage. There is no reason to disbelieve the assertion of the Bulls that the do not allow unmarried couples to share a double bed.

    I would also be surprised to see the verdict overturned. I fully anticipate that the judges in appeal will have handed their consciences over to the spirit of the age.

  10. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Sol. thanks for your reply. You say “it was not the legislative intent that a civil partnership be legally identical to marriage”,

    That’s a very good point. Only seven years ago when the bill was going through Parliament it was couched in “separate but equal” language. It had to navigate the Commons and the Lords and the fact that it made it at all was, I thought at the time, a miracle.

    Since then we’ve got the Equality Act, which also made it through a much more relaxed legislature and says that for most purposes (including this one) it’s identical to marriage. There’s your legislative intent.

    I don’t think you can really get away with claiming that marriage was created by God, because you know, being an atheist I might have problems with stipulating that.

    Your final sentence sounds so resigned.

    As a way round that, I suggest that we consider that we’re talking about two things here:

    1. the law and the facts of the case

    I think we can agree, or at least work towards agreement, on these matters.

    2. personal religious or metaphysical beliefs about the nature of marriage that may involve moral judgements

    I think we can probably recognise that these play no part in modern civil law. This doesn’t mean they’re not real.

    • sol Says:

      Tony, I agree that the Equality Act has molded the civil partnerships into its image. I have no doubt that the true intent of the Labour government was for civil partnerships to be as they have become, even if they had to wiggle it through Parliament on a wing and a prevarication.

      I’m not asking that you stipulate that marriage was created by God. As you are an atheist, I would not expect you to stipulate such a thing. Even before you made this profession of non-faith, I would have guessed that you would not have stipulated it. Nonetheless, I posit that marriage was created by God, because either it objectively was or it objectively wasn’t (due either to God’s lack of specific will to do so or His lack of existence), and as a theist it is a most logical conclusion.

      As for the law and the facts of the case, even Judge Rutherford appealed to “that’s just the way things are now” to support his judgement. As is the case with judicial activism generally, the statute just provides the platform and the excuse for arriving at the desired conclusion. Can you agree that the judge injected a bit of “this is just the way it should be” to justify his ruling?

      The efforts of the Left have long been to marginalise religion as a personal matter best left between an individual and whatever or whomever they believe in, as if this can be bifurcated from how that person interacts with and participates in society. The nature of marriage has never been a matter of personal belief. It has been, and in fact is necessarily, a collective moral judgement. The moral judgement of religious people must necessarily reference fixed moral standards that are religiously derived. The law is the codification of collective morality. Thus the religious beliefs of those members of the body politic who are religious must necessarily play a part in the maintenance or development of civil law.

      The final sentence of my previous comment is resigned, because I have seen the collective morality of the UK decline steadily over the last several decades. I have seen Parliament enact legislation and judges interpret legislation in a way that reflects the move away from a collective recognition that the metaphysical beliefs of Christianity are the foundation of what make this, or any other, society a good society. They have created for themselves a new definition of “good” which is without any eternal value, and lacking eternal value it has little inherent temporal value.

      • Tony Sidaway Says:

        Well to be fair to the Labour government I did go looking in Hansard, and certainly at the CIvil Partnership bill’s second reading in the Commons Jacqui Smith, at that time a junior minister who proposed the motion, was pretty forthright about its purpose: to give equality by giving the same rights and responsibilities to those in civil partnerships as exist in civil marriage. You can find her reply to a question by Ann Widdecombe in Commons Hansard for July 12, 2004, which I take the liberty of quoting both the question and the answer in full:

        Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con): The Minister has several times used the word “equality”. Will she be very specific? Is the equality that she seeks that whereby a homosexual relationship based on commitment is treated in future in exactly the same way as marriage in law?

        Jacqui Smith: If the right hon. Lady looks at the Bill, she will see that, in the vast majority of cases, it is the Government’s intention that those people who enter into a civil partnership will receive the same rights and take on the same responsibilities as those that we expect of those who enter into civil marriage.
        END OF QUOTE

        You ask ‘Can you agree that the judge injected a bit of “this is just the way it should be” to justify his ruling?’ and you imply that this was a case of judicial activism–one where somebody overreaches the law by interpreting it in a light favorable to his political opinions.

        Well my answer is “no”, If you look at the ruling it cleaves very closely to the wording of the Equality Act (Sexual
        Orientation) Regulations 2007 and I don’t think he had that much wriggle room. You can easily find the judgement online, but I give the link at the bottom.

        You appeal to the notion of laws as coming from a “collective moral judgement” and to the fact that the moral judgements of religious people must be part of that. Yes. But even religious people don’t exclusively derive their standards from the same single source.

        We don’t really have that many fixed moral standards. Just 45 years ago the last judicial execution was carried out in Britain, and public hangings were carried out until just 95 years before that. In the 1914-1918 war the British Army regularly executed those who showed cowardice in battle–military medicine was not as well developed in those days. In the 17th century a witchcraft act was instituted because of the fear of conjuration of evil spirits, but just over a century later the idea of witchcraft was regarded as silly so a new act was raised to penalize con men who pretended to be able to perform magic. By 1951 when it was repealed that act was still being used to prosecute fraudulent mediums. Open slavery was permitted until 1807, when laws were set up to penalize traders. Things have always changed, as people have changed.

        I don’t think Christians should be proud of the abolished laws against homosexuals. They appear to me cruel and arbitrary, and based on ancient writings. To equate the denigration of homosexuals, and the treatment of homosexuals as outcasts and worse, seems to me one of the most repugnant aspects of modern Christianity; thankfully it is not a universal characteristic of Christians. There isn’t anything moral about the Christian attitude towards homosexuality.

        http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/hall-preddy-bull-judgment.pdf

  11. sol Says:

    I will miss Ann Widdecombe’s contribution to the political process now that she has retired. I was disappointed that she wasn’t elevated to the Lords. But that aside, perhaps the Government was forthright enough about its intention to abolish the sanctity of marriage at the time of Civil Partnership bill. Like I said before, I had no doubt that within the entire legislative programme, including the Equality Act, that was the plan.

    I refer back to my previous acknowledgement of resignation. This was made possible because, to quote Judge Rutherford, “Those Judaeo-Christian principles, standards and beliefs which were accepted as normal in times past are no longer so accepted.” You and His Honour the judge see this as moving in a positive direction. I hold the view of the American jurist Robert Bork who describes the similar trend in America as “slouching toward Gomorrah”.

    Thank you for providing the link to the judgement. It was a very informative read. It appears that the judge’s lack of wiggle room, as least in part, comes from the jurisdictional limitations of the County Court judge. He acknowledges more than once that a judge in the High Court would have more wiggle room. as these appears to be part of the basis (along with the lack of precedence in this area) for giving permission to appeal. Judge Rutherford sees that a High Court judge, with greater discretion in applying the regulations, could reach a different conclusion.

    Once again, I am resigned that such a judge probably will not do so, because I would expect most judges to also be slouching toward Gomorrah.

    I do not hold to the idea that all changes in society and changes in the law are good. I am not opposed to capital punishment. I am opposed the deaths of 200,000 children through procured abortion (not including those who are lost to the morning after pill) in Britain each year. I think there is much more to commend King Alfred, Moses, Solomon, and Jesus (to refer back to Judge Rutherford’s comment on the façade of the High Courts of Justice) than there is to commend “Many of the most significant changes” that “have taken place in the last half century.”

    I do not believe that homosexuals should be treated as outcasts or worse (though this would be a subjective assessment), but I also do not belief that sexual proclivities should constitute a protected class, whatever those proclivities may be. I also belief that people, whether as individuals or private companies, should be free to do business with whomever they choose to do business for whatever reason. This not based on my views with regard to homosexuality or homosexual behaviour choices, or even non-marital sexual behaviour choices of any kind, but on my adherence to the principles of the free market. I think that any legislation that demands otherwise is an affront to freedom.

    I find it contradictory for you to say on the one hand that we don’t have many fixed moral standards and on the other that there isn’t anything moral about the Christian attitude toward homosexuality. As morality is system of ideas about right and wrong conduct, is could first of all be posited that an attitude is not ipso facto moral or immoral. However, it appears that you are open to a very loose construction of morality, with the exception of Christianity. The morality of Christianity is repugnant to you because the only thing that does not fit within your unfixed moral code is the choice by some to adhere to a strict moral code.

  12. Tony Sidaway Says:

    I’ve always liked Ann Widdecombe and I miss her too. There are some personalities that shine across any political divide, and her warmth and willingness to engage all views do her credit. She was also a skilful politician in Parliament capable of inspiring fear across the dispatch box at Question Time.
    Well you don’t even seem to agree with the notion that the law can compel a private business to stop acting an a way that disadvantages a “suspect class”. Excuse me, but that’s pretty extreme even in the context of American politics. In the UK, forget it. Equality isn’t suspended by a mere trading relationship. Watching the US from across the Atlantic, and in some cases even participating as journalists or activists, we learned about segregated businesses and were universally nauseated. Similar abusive practices in the UK were outlawed very soon afterwards.

    You agree with Bork that we’re “slouching toward Gomorra”. I don’t see it that way. Harmful practices are outlawed, society becomes more pluralistic.

  13. sol Says:

    I’m not much for the notion that the law should compel private business, full stop. If you think that is extreme in the context of American politics, you don’t know American politics very well. Laissez-faire free enterprise is a pretty mainstream idea. Having lived in the UK for over a decade, and having spent time working at Westminster two decades ago, I know that such ideas have long been silenced from the political conversation.

    I’m sure you are aware that California is the only state in the US to consider sexual orientation a suspect class. Two other states consider it a quasi-suspect class. Three out of fifty isn’t a lot. It is also not a suspect class in federal law.

    I agree with Bork. In this slouching toward Gomorrah harmful practices are encouraged and society becomes more permissive.

  14. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Well I refer to the Civil Rights Act which has titles addressing the obligations of businesses, and the many government agencies that do exactly what you object to: compel businesses to comply with the law and with lawful regulations. You don’t like it, but it’s a very strong part of American culture. American laissez-faire effectively died in the 1930s and despite many attempts at rescuscitation it remains cold and dead.

    There’s a certain political strand in America that likes to think it knows what America is about, but their view of the country doesn’t match reality. It’s a modern social democratic state, just like almost every other industrialized country. Laissez-faire simply cannot deliver the infrastructure a modern state needs to compete.

  15. sol Says:

    I’m aware of the Civil Rights Act and what it does. And I’m well aware of the many government agencies that burden businesses with volumes and volumes of regulations. And I know that the administration of FDR did a great deal to perpetrate this. However, the Tea Party is evidence that laissez-faire is both warm and alive. It’s sole motivation is to pry the claws of government out of the lives of individuals and businesses.

    It is telling that Rand Paul made the faux pas of trying to explain that while the Civil Rights Act was important in many ways, it wasn’t perfect legislation, yet despite the media storm generated by the Left was still elected to the US Senate.

    Nonetheless, the Civil Rights Act coupled with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, unlike the Equality Act, have never been extended to choices of behaviour, except, of course, by California. And it must be said that what California does is often a signal to the rest of the nation as to what they want to be sure not to do.

    That certain political strand to which you refer is becoming the dominant political strand across most of America. It is less dominant in the Northeast and West Coast, which live under the illusion that they are the real America with the rest merely something to see out of the window of an airplane.

  16. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Well the rights of homosexuals are in some ways more advanced in the UK, but things are moving in the USA too, mainly because of generational changes in public opinion. Suspect class status may or may not materialize–it’s a difficult issue for the current Supreme Court–but I think I can say with confidence that the requisite civil rights will be won and protected by legislation or by the courts, a little more each year.

    I don’t see the evidence that you see of a coming abandonment of big government. There is the anti-government rhetoric which is played up by the GOP to keep its base in line, but the opinion polls consistently demonstrate an unwillingness to dismantle the social security system or medicare even in the face of a huge national debt.

  17. sol Says:

    I have frequently said that Republicans with not truly embrace the message of small government without dealing with social security and medicare. These are two areas that even most of the Tea Party avoids. However, the general move to otherwise restrain government is a good one and still a significant force in the backlash against the Obama administration.

    Inasmuch as homosexual behaviour becomes protected by legislation or the courts, I go back to Bork, as his original thesis regards American society.

  18. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Although it’s difficult to see far ahead on health care, I’ll hazard a guess that the people will find that they really like a law that forces insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions. Seeing construction workers idle while the basic infrastructure decays, too, will increase doubts about the myth of the all-providing free market. No, the stories people tell about their nation may say otherwise, but I suspect the American people want a government that makes life livable and protects them from the worst effects of capitalism. Same as everywhere else.
    On culture war issues, there is only one direction and its towards equality. The fuss, the noise, the pushback, all evaporates in time and civil rights expand as incoming generations refuse to absorb the obstructive ways of their parents. Bork doesn’t like it, the Birchers before him, Schlafly and the Eagle Forum, even some of the tea partiers. But I think it’s a good thing. Ancient encrustations of prejudice should eventually die.

  19. sol Says:

    Sorry for the delay in responding.

    I’m sure a lot of people will like the law that requires coverage for pre-existing conditions, unless it gets swept away with the whole health care bill by the Supreme Court. I’m not sure what you are one about with the bit about construction workers idle.

    There are some American people that want a government that makes life livable. There are other American people that realise it is not up to the government to make life anything.

    Prejudices do not die, they are just exchanged. After all, in the instant case, the civil rights of the Bulls have been contracted to expand the rights of those who choose homosexual behaviour, whether or not under the color of civil partnership, and based upon the choice of that behaviour.

    However, the contraction of the rights of the Bulls is much more egregious than the previous lack of a right for homosexual couples to sleep together in the Bulls’ home. There is no lack of other accommodation available to homosexual couples in Cornwall. As you acknowledge, the society is more and more accepting of homosexual behaviour. So Preddy and Hall could have stayed almost anywhere. The Bulls only have one home.

    The issue is not one of making sure homosexual couples have access to accommodation, but rather making sure that no one can maintain their own values regarding sexual morality.

  20. Tony Sidaway Says:

    This is the problem with that zero-sum viewpoint above: you say society is infringing on the right of the Bulls to infringe on the rights of homosexuals not to be treated unequally.

    This idea that people running businesses don’t have the right to apply their own discrimination according to an arbitrary class isn’t new, you know that. It’s in the Civil Rights Act, 1964. It’s in our European laws. It’s universally accepted at the level of statute law and has never been credibly challenged.

    Okay, so I turn up at a guest house and get turned away for some arbitrary reason related to the rather toxic and harmful religious beliefs of the owner. I should not have to suffer that. The right to practise a religion *should not* encompass the right to do even the tiniest token of harm to others.

  21. sol Says:

    My point is that the Bulls are not infringing on the rights of homosexuals.

    It appears by your logic that a homosexual attends a church service where homosexual behaviour is condemned as sinful and they are offended by that – thus subjectively self-evaluating that they have received at least the tiniest token of harm – the church should be held liable for discrimination.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: